DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/28/2025 has been considered and entered.
The objection to the drawings set forth in the office action mailed o4/28/2025 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
The objections to the claims set forth in the office action mailed o4/28/2025 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 112 set forth in the office action mailed o4/28/2025 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 12-16) filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-14 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shinoda (US 4810836 A), Witt (US 20030099446 A1), and Bohnert (US 20060153509 A1).
Examiner is relying on Witt (US 20030099446 A1) to address limitations of amended claim 1. With regards to amended claim 1, applicant has argued “…the cited references fail to disclose, teach or suggest "wherein an outer surface of the high resistant aramid yarn is covered by a flame retardant non-corrosive jacket made of a polyurethane, a polyethylene or a cross-linked polyethylene…”. However, Witt (US 20030099446 A1) teaches an optical fiber comprising aramid yarn covered by a polyethylene jacket that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention (Witt/Fig1; Paragraph 32/Lines 26-29), therefore the claimed flame-retardant property is presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the prior art device does not inherently possess the claimed properties. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 4810836 A) in view of Witt (US 20030099446 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Shinoda discloses a fiber insulator, comprising:
a fiber optical cable (Shinoda/Fig13/Fiber optic cable 3);
a ceramic jacket (Fig13/Ceramic jacket 1 [Column 3/Lines 61-62]), wherein the ceramic jacket is hollow, and wherein the ceramic jacket has an inner hole diameter configured to guide the fiber optical cable (Fig13); and
an insulating filling material (Fig13/Insulating filling material 4), which at least partially fills out the ceramic jacket and is arranged between the fiber optical cable and the ceramic jacket (Fig13),
wherein at least one end of the fiber insulator is closed by at least one end cap configured to close the at least one end of the fiber insulator (Fig13/End cap 9a),
wherein the at least one end cap is configured such that the fiber optical cable passes through the at least one end cap (Fig13),
wherein the at least one end cap has a fiber optical cable opening, the fiber optical cable opening being arranged such that the fiber optical cable passes through the fiber optical cable opening into the fiber insulator (Fig13/Passage through element 9a defined by element 3),
wherein the at least one end cap is configured to fix the fiber optical cable such that movement of the fiber optical cable along a fiber optical cable extension direction is prevented (Column 11/Lines 30-32), and wherein the fiber optical cable comprises:
at least one fiber extending along the fiber cable extension direction,
wherein the optical fiber cable has at least a first section and a second section,
wherein the first section of optical fiber cable is arranged inside the fiber insulator and the second section is arranged outside the fiber insulator, the second section extending from the at least one end cap away from the at least one end cap along the fiber optical cable extension direction,
wherein the fiber optical cable opening is configured to fix the second section of the optical fiber cable,
wherein the fiber optical cable opening is configured to be fixed with a high resistant aramid yarn having the outer surface covered by the flame retardant non-corrosive jacket made of a polyurethane, a polyethylene or a cross-linked polyethylene (Fig13/Presence of adhesive layer 12b), and
wherein the at least one end cap at the fiber optical cable opening is fixed to the outer surface of the fiber optic cable.
Shinoda is silent regarding the fiber optic cable comprising
a hollow tube, and the least one fiber being arranged within the hollow tube;
a gel arranged in the hollow tube and at least partially between the at least one fiber and the hollow tube,
wherein an outer surface of the second section of the hollow tube is covered by a high resistant aramid yarn,
wherein an outer surface of the high resistant aramid yarn is covered by a flame retardant non-corrosive jacket made of a polyurethane, a polyethylene or a cross-linked polyethylene.
However, the practice of configuring an optical fiber cable such that it comprises the above features exists in the art, as exemplified by Witt. Shinoda and Witt are considered to be analogous in the field of optical fiber insulation.
Witt discloses a fiber optic cable comprising
a hollow tube (Witt/Fig1/Hollow tube 12); and
the least one fiber being arranged within the hollow tube (Witt/Fig1/Optical fiber 14);
a gel arranged in the hollow tube and at least partially between the at least one fiber and the hollow tube (Witt/Fig1/Gel [Unlabeled; Element 12 is specified as “…gel filled…” in paragraph 31]),
wherein an outer surface of the second section of the hollow tube is covered by a high resistant aramid yarn (Witt/Fig1/Aramid yarn 16; Paragraph 32),
wherein an outer surface of the high resistant aramid yarn is covered by a flame retardant non-corrosive jacket made of a polyurethane, a polyethylene or a cross-linked polyethylene (Witt/Paragraph 32/”…medium-density polyethylene…”; [See the Response to Arguments section of this office action]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the protective layers taught by Witt to the optical fiber cable of the fiber insulator disclosed by Shinoda since doing so would further protect the fiber from mechanical stresses and environmental hazards.
With regards to claim 2, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator according to claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the ceramic jacket has an undulating shape (Shinoda/Fig1/Undulating shape of element 1) and an inner surface of the ceramic jacket faces the fiber optical cable (Shinoda/Fig1).
With regards to claim 4, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator
With regards to claim 5, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator according to claim 4, wherein the fiber optical cable opening is configured to be sealed with the fiber optical cable when the fiber optical cable passes through the fiber optical cable opening (Shinoda/Fig13).
With regards to claim 12, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator
the gel has a specific viscosity configured to only partially transmit movement and/or rotation of the hollow tube to the at least one fiber or
wherein the specific viscosity is configured to decouple movement and/or the rotation of the hollow tube from movement of the at least one fiber (Witt/Fig1/Gel [Unlabeled; Element 12 is specified as “…gel filled…” in paragraph 31; Gels are semi-liquid and thus will not fully transfer motion between components that are separated by only gel]), and/or
wherein the gel has the specific viscosity configured to not move or drip out at the fiber optical cable ends even if the fiber optical cable is arranged in a position in which the fiber optical cable extends in the fiber optical cable extension direction parallel to the earth's gravitational pull.
With regards to claim 13, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator according to claim 1, wherein
the hollow tube is made of a dual layer hollow tube, the dual layers being polycarbonate and polybutylene terephthalate, or
wherein the hollow tube is made of polyamide, ethylene tetrafluoroethylene or polybutylene terephthalate (Witt/Paragraph 32/Lines 3-6).
With regards to claim 14, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator according to claim 1, wherein the hollow tube is a loose hollow tube (Witt/Paragraph 42).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 4810836 A) in view of Witt (US 20030099446 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bohnert (US 20060153509 A1).
With regards to claim 3, Shinoda and Witt together disclose the fiber insulator according to claim 1, but do not disclose the insulating filling material as having thermal properties configured to compensate for thermal properties of at least one of the fiber optical cable and the ceramic jacket. However, the practice of selecting an insulating filling material such that the thermal properties of the material compensate for thermal properties of a fiber optic cable exist in the art as exemplified by Bohnert. Shinoda, Witt, and Bohnert are considered to be analagous in the field of optical fiber insulation.
Bohnert discloses an insulating filling material (Bohnert/Insulating filling material 10) having thermal properties configured to compensate for thermal properties of a fiber optical cable (Bohnert/Paragraph 47/Lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an insulating filling material for the fiber insulator disclosed by Shinoda and Witt such that the thermal properties of the material compensate for thermal properties of a fiber optic cable as suggested by Bohnert, since doing so would help prevent the fiber optic cable from being damaged due to thermal expansion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the fiber insulator according to claims 1 wherein a square like member formed between the ceramic jacket and the at least one end of the fiber insulator, wherein, the square like member has a front surface and a rear surface parallel to the front surface and the front and rear surfaces connected by side surfaces, wherein at least one edge formed by one of the side surfaces and the front surface or the rear surface is configured as an opening arranged to receive the at least one end cap, and wherein, the opening of the square like member seals with the at least one end cap in addition to the accompanying features of the independent claim. The closest prior art was relied upon in the rejection set forth 04/28/2025.
Claims 7-8 inherit the allowability of claim 6 on which they depend.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Seike (US 5069525 A) [Fig3]
Seike (US 4921322 A) [Fig1a]
Fox (US 4610033 A) [Fig1]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874